Corrections & Clarifications.

In yesterday's post I described the Diary of Anne Frank as "atrocity propaganda." This may have had led some people to believe that I think the diary is a work of fiction. This is not the case. Since it's publication in 1947 the diaries authenticity has been called into question on a number of occasions, mainly by right-wing nut bags like David Irvine and the BNP. As a result the text has been the subject of a number of court cases and multiple forensic investigations. The findings of these exercises are always the same. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the text is anything other then the diary of a young Jewish girl written during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. It has features nothing more then the normal amount of editing and polishing involved in translating a private memoir into a published book. It is therefore as truthful as any 15 year old's diary can be expected to be.

The term "atrocity propaganda" was, to my knowledge at least, was coined by Israel Government spokespeople to describe any attempt by Gazans to describe injuries, deaths or damage to property carried out by the Israeli Defence Forces. Over the last week this rapidly became their stock response to any incident described by the UN or international journalists without any attempt to, or possibly to avoid a discussion of whether and how the event actually occurred. From this parrot like response I can only assume that the Israelis are defining "atrocity propaganda" as any attempt to promote information relating to an atrocity. As such the Diary of Anne Frank is a clear example of atrocity propaganda.

The correction I need to make bears no relation whatsoever to yesterday's post but I can't be bothered to chase up the person I made it to individually so I will simply post the correction here.

One of the ancillary protests that have sprung up in the UK over the Israeli/Gaza conflict has been against Lloyds TSB who as the war began refused to act as the clearing bank for a Palestinian aid charity called Interpal. Coming as it does at a time when Palestinian aid charities need all the help they can the timing of this decision to effectively shut down Interpal's operations has repeatedly been called into question. Yesterday I attempted to answer that question by saying something along the lines of;

"The United States have just slammed Lloyds TSB with a massive fine for breaking sanctions. Much as it pains me to say so your quarrel is with the US rather then Lloyds TSB."

What I meant to say was;

"For a number of years the United States have been investigating Lloyds TSB for breaking international sanctions against Iran. This court case recently came to an end with Lloyds TSB receiving a large(ish), pre-negotiated fine. The timing of this case coming to an end is the result of a number of reasons including, but not limited too; The prosecution had come to it's natural end, there was a desire to "clear the decks" before Bush stepped down as president and Britain's espionage games which were once almost endearing are now just getting embarrassing. The questions you should be asking yourself are; Why was one of Britain's dirtiest banks so keen to know all the sordid secrets of Iran's money laundering operations? and How badly do MI6 want an excuse to unload the Lloyds TSB brand?"

Apologises for any confusion but you know what it's like late at night and a bit drunk. Besides in this fools graveyard it's getting harder and harder to pretend I'm part of an active service unit. Now if anyone needs me I'm off to fill in a large form to enquire if my local council has managed to grow a braincell. That forms second question is "Are there any other names by which you're known?" so this may take some time.